In addition to the repairing of smashed storefronts, the cleanup of shattered glass and the towing of burned cars, there’s also a fair amount of soul-searching going on in downtown Vancouver these days.

As this year’s final Hockey Night in Canada devolved into Riot Night in Vancouver following the Canucks’ Game 7 loss to the Bruins, the looting, physical violence and at times gleeful photo-ops in front of destroyed shops have superseded the Stanley Cup series as the lasting story of that eventful evening.

While the customary finger-pointing is underway, with police officials blaming a “few bad apples, er, anarchists” and residents criticizing law enforcement for an insufficient street presence, especially in light of similar rioting following Vancouver’s 1994 Stanley Cup defeat, such a blame game does not necessarily go to the deeper wellsprings of such violence.

Psychologist Bob Carrothers of North Ohio University told CBC News that he regards the post-game rioting in Vancouver simply as an expression of frustration, following certain standard patterns of sport violence (though usually such riots are associated with victory celebrations). A few young white males generally get the ball, or the police cruiser, rolling, others gather around and cheerlead and, presto, a sports riot is born.

Carrothers said that appeared to be the case in Vancouver, even though it was not a celebratory event.

“Vancouver might just be an international city with a different dynamic,” he said. “It’s nothing they should be ashamed of as a city — it happens.”

But does the claim that riots “just happen” conveniently gloss over the larger cultural pervasiveness of violence that might give rise to such street mobs?

Rising up along with the smoke from Vancouver’s street fires are questions: What’s the boundary of violence for fan behaviour? Is there any connection between the NHL’s fudging of acceptable and unacceptable violence on the ice and a blurring of the boundary between normal fan venting and rioting in the street? YouTube clips of Vancouver rioters smiling, smooching and holding hands as they enter looted stores beg the question: Is violence not only becoming normalized, but a way of being social?

One of the most celebrated theorists on the nature of violence is René Girard, author of the classic work, Violence and the Sacred. Girard claims that through scapegoating, rival or disgruntled groups can find camaraderie while bashing a common foe.

In this sense, violence is seen as “restorative” for a community, though the pummeled scapegoat on which the majority vents their anger usually finds the process less than healthy.

Kris Griffin served as such a scapegoat during the recent Vancouver melee. Wearing his Bruins jersey in a designated “fan zone” downtown, Griffin, by the second period, began to be pushed around and spat upon by an increasingly aggressive and unhappy crowd. Despite removing his jersey, he was still jumped by four or five Vancouver fans who began kicking and punching him. His crime? Rooting for Boston.

Scapegoat Thesis 1, Civilized Society 0.

Recent studies on the pervasiveness of media violence may also shed some light on the Vancouver debacle.

A steady diet of violent entertainment can lead to what esteemed media critic George Gerbner called an acceptance of “happy violence,” violence that engenders laughter and “good times,” while desensitizing viewers to the deep pain and suffering such violence entails.

For some researchers, such entertainment is a becoming a public health issue. University of Wisconsin Media researcher Joanne Cantor fears we may be “growing a society of alienated, aggressive, untrusting adults” through such viewing. Her fears are shared by Iowa State University psychologist Craig Anderson, who cites studies showing that in the immediate aftermath of playing even 15 minutes of a game with violent content, 7-year-olds and 17-year-olds both exhibit an increase in aggressive thoughts, emotions and behaviours.

As Anderson states, “If your 11-year-old spends six or seven hours a week in focused concentration on violent action in a video game, will it make him a rampaging killer? No. Will it mean that when someone accidentally bumps into him at the cafeteria, he’s more likely to interpret it as a threat and respond aggressively? Yes.”

And what if his favourite hockey team loses the Stanley Cup?

Stephen Bede Scharper, a Senior Fellow at Massey College, teaches a course on religious violence and non-violence at University of Toronto Mississauga.

More on thestar.com

We value respectful and thoughtful discussion. Readers are encouraged to flag comments that fail to meet the standards outlined in our
Community Code of Conduct.
For further information, including our legal guidelines, please see our full website
Terms and Conditions.